city attorney dennis herrera release...city attorney dennis herrera—page 2 safe, habitable’...

City Attorney Dennis Herrera News Release

[MORE]

ForImmediateRelease:May12,2014Contact:GabrielZitrin(415)554‐4653

Herrera sues City‐contracted SRO hotel owners for rampant housing violations, false claims

Pervasive code violations, musical rooms, defrauding taxpayers to house city‐assisted clients lead to lawsuit about ‘aggressively protecting our most vulnerable residents’

SANFRANCISCO(May12,2014)—CityAttorneyDennisHerreratodaysuedtheownersandoperatorsofatleast15singleroomoccupancyhotels,orSROs,forpervasiveviolationsofstateandlocallawsintendedtoprotectresidents’health,safetyandtenancyrights.Thedefendants,allmembersoftheThakorfamilyandtheirarrayofbusinessaffiliates,includeSROhotelswhoseCitycontractsobligatethemtoprovide“clean,safe,habitableconditions”fortenantsinpublicly‐fundedtransitionalhousing.Asaresult,Herrera’slitigationseekstoexactthetrebledamagesauthorizedbyCalifornia’sFalseClaimsActfordefraudingSanFranciscotaxpayers—ontopofthealreadysignificantcivilpenalties,feesanddisgorgementofillegally‐obtainedprofitsthatunlawfulbusinesspracticestypicallyentail.SROhotelsofferhousingoflastresortforsignificantnumbersofeconomicallyvulnerableSanFranciscans,accordingtothecomplaintfiledinSanFranciscoSuperiorCourtthismorning,includingseniors,personswithdisabilities,andothersonlow‐orfixed‐incomes.TheresidentialhotelsownedorcontrolledbyBalvantsinh,Kiransinh,BahavasinhandLatabenB.Thakoraccountforsome880residentialroomsintheTenderloin,SOMA,mid‐MarketandMissionDistrictneighborhoods.TheyincludetheAdmiralHotel,AldrichHotel,AuburnHotel,BalboaHotel,BestInn,BristolHotel,BudgetInn,CivicCenterHotel,HotelKrupa,JalaramHotel,KeanHotel,KiranHotel,PageHotel,WarfieldHotel,andWintonHotel.“SanFrancisco’sresponsetoouraffordablehousingcrisismustincludeaggressivelyprotectingourmostvulnerableresidents—andthat’sexactlywhatthiscaseisabout,”saidHerrera.“TheThakorfamilyhasexploitedlow‐incomeresidentsbydenyingthemtenancyrights.They’vedefiantlythumbedtheirnosesatcityinspectorsoverpervasivecodeviolations,whichendangerresidentsandneighborsalike.Andthey’vebilledtaxpayersforprovidingclientsofcityprogramswith‘clean,

City Attorney Dennis Herrera— safe,habitable’housing,whenitwasanythingbutclean,safe,orhabitable.Thesedefendantshavedemonstratedanappallingpatternofillegalconductonmultiplefronts,andthelawsuitwe’vefiledtodayshoulddemonstrateourresolvetoputanendtoit.Thiscaseisoneofseveralinvolvinghousing‐relatedmattersbeingreviewedbymyoffice,andI’mgratefultothecitydepartmentsandcommunityadvocateswhoareworkingwiththeCityAttorney’sOfficetohelpuspursuethesekindsofscofflaws.Iencouragetenantsandneighborstoreporthousing‐relatedwrongdoingonlinetomyofficethroughourUp2Code.orgwebsiteortheUp2Codeapp,orbycallingourCodeEnforcementHotlineat(415)554‐3977.”ViolationsdetailedinHerrera’scomplaintincludedenyingrightsoftenancybyforcingoccupantstovacatetheirroomsbeforetheycanaccumulate30consecutivedaysofresidency—preventingthemfromgainingsuchtenancyrightsasrentcontrolandstrongerlegalprotectionsfromcertainkindsofevictions.Thepracticeknownas“musicalrooms,”whichseekstomaintainSanFrancisco’smosteconomicallyvulnerableresidentsastransientsindefinitely,isillegalunderbothstateandlocallaw,andrepresentsaformof“tenantharassment”thatisadditionallybarredunderthecity’sRentOrdinance.TheThakorshavealsosystematicallydefiedrepeateddemandsbymultiplecityagenciestoaddresssubstandardhousingconditionsthatpervadetheirSROhotels,accordingtoHerrera’scivilaction,creatingintolerablepublicnuisances.Healthandsafetycodeviolationsdetailedinthecomplaintinclude:rampantbedbug,cockroachandrodentinfestations;severemoldandmildewinresidentialroomsandbathrooms;inadequatefireprotectionandsafety,includinginsufficientsmokedetectorsanddefectiveandmissingfiresprinklers;extremehoardingandclutteringcausingadditionalfirehazards;inoperableelevatorsandinadequatebathroomfacilities;inadequateelectricalserviceanddefectivewiring;damagedfloors,wallsandstairs;inadequateheat,security,andtrashfacilities;plumbingdisrepairandrawsewageleaks;andhazardousdispersalofleadpaintchipsanddustduringunlicensedconstructionwork.Additionally,totheextenttheThakorfamilyengagesinrepairandmaintenancework,itisfrequentlyperformedwithoutrequiredpermits,andwithoutlicensedcontractorsqualifiedtodothework,accordingtothecomplaint.Herrera’scivilactionreliesontwokeystatelawsthatcouldpotentiallymaximizecivilpenaltiesandinjunctionsontheThakorsfortheirrampantviolationsoflawsthatprotectresidents’health,safetyandtenancyrights.TheCaliforniaUnfairCompetitionLaw,whichprotectsconsumersaswellaslaw‐abidingcompetingbusinesses,couldresultincivilpenaltiesofupto$2,500foreachunlawfulbusinessact;anddisgorgementofill‐gottenprofits.Inaddition,California’sFalseClaimsAct,whichprotectsstateandlocalgovernmentsfrombeingdefraudedbypubliccontractors,couldallowSanFranciscotorecovertrebledamagesforeachsubmissionofafalseclaimforpaymentinwhichtheThakorsrepresentedtheywereabidingbythetermsoftheircitycontracts.TheCityalsocouldrecoveritsattorneysfeesinbringingthisactionunderboththeStateHousingLawandthelocalRentOrdinanceThecaseis:CityandCountyofSanFranciscoandPeopleoftheStateofCaliforniav.Balvantsinh“Bill”Thakor,etal.,SanFranciscoSuperiorCourtNo.539230,filedMay12,2014.AcopyofthecomplaintfromthecaseisavailableontheCityAttorney'swebsiteat:http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.Copiesoffullexhibitsprovidedonrequest.

###

1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney , 2 YVONNE R. MERE, State Bar #173594

JERRY THREET, State Bar #205983 3 Deputy City Attorneys

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94102-5408

Telephone: (415) 554-3914 5 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644

E-Mail: [email protected] 6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

su~E~m county ofi~n~~ MAY 122014

CLERK OF THE COURT SUperior Court of CalHomIa, County of San francisCO

7 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

8

9

10

11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Case No. 12 a Municipal Corporation, and the PEOPLE OF CGC 14 ... 539230

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and 13 through DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney

for the City and County of San Francisco, 14

15

16

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BALVANTSINH "BILL" THAKOR, an 17 individual; KIRANSINH THAKOR, an

individual; BAHA V ASINH THAKOR, an 18 individual; LATABEN B. THAKOR, an

individual; 56 MASON, LLC; BALBOA 19 HOTEL, LLC; CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC;

KEAN HOTEL, LLC; SHREE JALABAPA 20 HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM, LLC;

SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP; SHREE 21 JALARAM LODGING, LP; SHREE

JALARAMBAPA HOTEL, LP; TKB 22 INVESTMENTS, LLC; TKB INVESTMENTS,

LP; URA VI, LLC; WINTON HOTEL, LLC; 23 and DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY, inclusive,

24 Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL PENALTIES, RESTITUTION, AND DAMAGES WITH EXHIBITS A THROUGH D [PART ONE OF TWO]

Type of Case: AntitrustlTrade regulation (03)

25 The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, and the PEOPLE

26 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J.

27 HERRERA, ("Plaintiffs") file their Complaint against DEFENDANTS BAL V ANTSINH "BILL"

28 THAKOR (hereinafter "BILL THAKOR"), an individual; KIRANSINH THAKOR, an individual;

1 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li20 14\140685\00924741.doc

1 BAHA V ASINH THAKOR , an individual; LATABEN B. THAKOR, an individual; 56 MASON,

2 LLC; BALBOA HOTEL, LLC; CNIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN HOTEL, LLC; SHREE

3 JALABAP A HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP; SHREE

4 JALARAM LODGING, LP; SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC;

5 TKB INVESTMENTS, LP; URA VI, LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC and DOE ONE THROUGH

6 DOE FIFTY, inclusive.

7

8

9

Plaintiffs hereby allege as set forth below:

INTRODUCTION

1. Single-room occupancy ("SRO") residential hotels ("SRO hotels") provide housing of

1 0 last resort for significant numbers of vulnerable San Francisco residents, including seniors, persons

11 with disabilities, and others on low or fixed incomes.

12 2. This action arises out of Defendants' unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices

13 relating to their ownership, management, operation and maintenance of multiple, SRO hotel properties

14 ("Defendants' Properties") in San Francisco, California, over the last four years. During that time,

15 Defendants have been responsible for over 880 rooms in at least 15 SRO hotels, including the

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

following:

• Admiral Hotel, 608 O'Farrell Street - 30 rooms;

• Aldrich Hotel, 439 Jones Street - 35 rooms;

• Auburn Hotel, 481 Minna Street - 78 rooms;

• Balboa Hotel, 120 Hyde Street - 32 rooms;

• Best Inn, 162 Taylor Street - 28 rooms;

• Bristol Hotel, 56 Mason Street - 59 rooms;

• Budget Inn (formerly National Hotel), 1139 Market Street - 94 rooms;

• Civic Center Hotel, 20 - 12th Street - 156 rooms;

• Hotel Krupa, 700 Jones Street - 25 rooms;

• J alaram Hotel, 868 Valencia Street - 24 rooms;

• Kean Hotel, 1018 Mission Street -75 rooms;

• Kiran Hotel (a/k/a Crystal Hotel or Royal Hotel), 130 Eddy Street - 38 rooms;

2 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\Ii20 14\140685\00924 741.doc

1

2

• Page Hotel, 161 Leavenworth Street - 35 rooms;

• Warfield Hotel, 118 Taylor Street - 62 rooms;

3 • Winton Hotel, 445 O'Farrell Street - 110 rooms.

4 3. Defendants are owners or have ownership interests in multiple residential SRO hotel

5 buildings in San Francisco, or are agents of the owners who manage, maintain, and/or operate said

6 buildings on behalf of the owners.

7 4. As described in further detail belpw, Defendants' unlawful, unfair and fraudulent

8 business practices include: failing to make repairs necessary to maintain Defendants' Properties in a

9 safe, habitable, and code compliant condition; maintaining Defendants' Properties in a state that

10 constitutes an ongoing public nuisance and a blight on the surrounding neighborhoods; demanding and

11 receiving rents from low-income, vulnerable tenants for residential units that are legally required to be

12, habitable, while instead providing residential units that are not habitable; depriving occupants of SRO

13 Hotels of tenancy rights in violation of law; contracting with the City to provide safe, habitable, code

14 compliant residential housing units for vulnerable, low-income tenants, but instead providing units that

15 are not safe, habitable or code compliant; and doing construction and remodeling work at Defendants'

16 Properties without requisite permits and/or using unlicensed contractors.

17 5. By owning, operating, managing, and. maintaining multi-unit residential hotels in the

18 above manner, Defendants have been and are engaged in a conspiracy to violate local and state health

19 and safety laws; laws designed to protect residential tenants and consumers; laws prohibiting false

20 claims in local government contracting; as well as in a conspiracy to engage in unfair, unlawful, and

21 fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210 (the

22 "Unfair Competition Law").

23 6. Plaintiffs seek in this Complaint to enjoin Defendants' future violations oflaw; for an

24 award of civil penalties against Defendants for past and ongoing violations of law; for treble damages

25 for their submission of false claims for payment by the City; and for restitution of any money or

26 property, real or personal, they obtained through their unfair and unlawful business acts and practices.

27

28

3 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\1i20 14\140685\00924 741.doc

1

2

3

PARTIES AND SUBJECT PROPERTIES

Plaintiffs

7. Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (the "CITY" or "CCSF") is a

4 municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of

5 California, and is a city and county.

6 8. The CITY brings this action pursuant to the State Housing Law; Civil Code Sections

7 3479,3480,3491,3494; Code of Civil Procedure Section 731; Government Code Section 12652; and

8 the San Francisco Housing, Building, Health and Administrative Codes.

9 9. Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the "PEOPLE"), by and

10 through San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, brings this action pursuant to the Business and

11 Professions Code Sections 17200-17210, Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, and Code

12 of Civil Procedure Section 731.

13

14

THAKOR F AMIL Y Defendants

10. DEFENDANTS BAL V ANTSINH "BILL" THAKOR ("BILL THAKOR"),

15 KIRANSINH THAKOR, BAHA VASINH THAKO~ and LATABEN B. THAKOR (hereinafter, the

16 "THAKOR FAMILY") are, and at all relevant times were, the managers, operators, maintainers,

17 owners, affiliates and/or agents of multiple, SRO residential hotel buildings within the City and

18 County of San Francisco, both individually and operating as a partnership, including operating through

19 the business entities named as Defendants in this action.

20 11. DEFENDANTS BALVANTSINH "BILL" THAKOR and LATABEN B. THAKOR

21 are related as husband and wife, and DEFENDANTS KIRANSINH THAKOR and BAHA V ASINH

22 THAKOR are their sons.

23 12. The THAKOR FAMILY operates as a business. unit, with individual family members·

24 consulting other members of the THAKOR FAMILY in making business decisions, and also operates

25 through multiple business entities of which members of the THAKOR F AMIL Y are controlling

26 partners, members, shareholders, and/or officers, including 56 MASON, LLC; BALBOA HOTEL,

27 LLC; CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN HOTEL, LLC; SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP;

28 SHREE JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP;

4 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\\i2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC; TKB INVESTMENTS, LP;

2 URA VI, LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC.

3 Business Entity Defendants

4 13. DEFENDANT 56 MASON, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability

5 company formed and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a manager, operator,

6 maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City and County of San

7 Francisco, including the Bristol Hotel at 56 Mason Street. 56 MASON, LLC's business address is 116

8 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

9 14. DEFENDANT 56 MASON, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of the

10 THAK.oRFAMILY.

11 15. DEFENDANT BALBOA HOTEL, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited

12 liability company formed and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a manager,

13 operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City and County

14 of San Francisco, including the Balboa Hotel at 120 Hyde Street. BALBOA HOTEL, LLC's business

15 address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

16 16. DEFENDANT'BALBOA HOTEL, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of

17 the THAKOR FAMILY.

18 17. DEFENDANT CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a

19 limited liability company formed and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a

20 manager, operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City

21 and County of San Francisco, including the Civic Center Hotel located at 20 - 12th Street. CIVIC

22 CENTER HOTEL, LLC's business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

23 18. DEFENDANT CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter

24 ego oftheTHAKORFAMILY.

25 19. DEFENDANT KEAN HOTEL, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability

26 company formed and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a manager, operator,

27 maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City and County of San

28 Francisco, including the Kean Hotel located at 1018 Mission Street. KEAN HOTEL, LLC's business

5 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codent\1i2014\140685\00924741.doc


2 20. DEFENDANT KEAN HOTEL, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of the

3 THAKOR FAMILY.

4 21. DEFENDANT SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP is, and at all relevant times was, a

5 limited partnership company formed and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a

6 manager, operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent ofSRO hotel buildings within the City

7 and County of San Francisco, including the J alaram Hotel at 868 Valencia Street. SHREE

8 JALABAP A HOTEL, L~'S business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

9 22. DEFENDANT SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP at all relevant times acted as an alter

10 egooftheTHAKORFAMILY.

11 23. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAM, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited


13 operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City a:hd County

14 of San Francisco, including the Hotel Krupa at 700 Jones Street. SHREE JALARAM, LLC's business


16 24. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAM, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of

17 the THAKOR FAMILY.

18 25. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAM HOTEL~ LP is, and at all relevant times was, a

19 limited liability company formed and operating under thdaws of the State of California, and a

20 manager, operator, maintainer, owner; affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City

21 and County of San Francisco, including the Bristol Hotel at 56 Mason Street. SHREE JALARAM

22 HOTEL, LP's business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

23 26. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP at all relevant times acted as an alter

24 ego of the THAKOR FAM~ Y, including BILL THAKOR AND LATABEN THAKOR.

25 27. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP is, and at all relevant times was, a

26 limited partnership company formed and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a

27 manager, operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City

28 and County of San Francisco, including the Budget Inn at 1139 Market Street. SHREE JALARAM

6 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 LODGING, LP'S business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

2 28. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP at all relevant times acted as an

3 alter ego of the THAKOR FAMILY, including BILL THAKOR and KIRANSINH THAKOR.

4 29. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP is, and at all relevant times

5 was, a limited partnership company fonned and operating under the laws of the State of California,

6 and a manager, operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the

7 City and County of San Francisco, including the Kean Hotel at 1018 Mission Street. SHREE

8 JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP'S business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California

9 94102.

10 30. DEFENDANT SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP at all relevant times acted as an

11 alter ego of the THAKOR FAMILY, including BILL THAKOR AND LATABEN THAKOR.

12 ' 31. DEFENDANT TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a lirnited

13, liability company fonned and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a manager,

14 operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent ofSRO hotel buildings within the City and County

15 of San Francisco, including the Winton Hotel at 445 O'Farrell Street. TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC'S

16 business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

17 32. DEFENDANT TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC at all relevant times acted'as an alter ego

18 of the THAKOR FAMILY, including BILL THAKOR.

19 33. DEFENDANT TKB INVESTMENTS, LP is, and at all relevant times was, a lirnited

20 partnership company fonned and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a manager,

21 operator, mainta.i.r\.er, owner, affiliate and/or agent ofSRO hotel buildings within the City and County

22 of San Francisco, including the Budget Inn at 1139 Market Street. TKB INVESTMENTS, LP'S

23 business address is 116 Taylor Street, San Francisco, California 94102.

24 34. DEFENDANT TKB INVESTMENTS, LP at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of

25 the THAKOR FAMILY, including BILL THAKOR and KIRANSINH THAKOR.

26 35. DEFENDANT URA VI, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability

27' company fonned and operating under the laws of the State of California, and a manager, operator,

28 maintainer, owner, affiliate. and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City and County of San

7 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\1i2014\l4068S\00924741.doc

1 Francisco, including the Kiran Hotel at 130 Eddy Street. URA VI, LLC'S business address is listed

2 variously as 130 Eddy Street, San Francisco California 94102, and 868 Valencia Street, San Francisco,

3 California 94110 (the same address where the Jalaram Hotel is located).

4 36. DEFENDANT URA VI, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of the

5 THAKOR FAMILY, including BILL THAKOR.

6 37. DEFENDANT WINTON HOTEL, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited


8 operator, maintainer, owner, affiliate and/or agent of SRO hotel buildings within the City and County

9 of San Francisco, including the Winton Hotel at 445 O'Farrell Street. WINTON HOTEL, LLC's

10 business address is 116 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94102.

11 38. WINTON HOTEL, LLC at all relevant times acted as an alter ego of the THAKOR

12 FAMILY, including BILL THAKOR.

13 39. Defendants DOE ONE through DOE FIFTY are sued herein under fictitious names.

14 Plaintiff do not at this time know the true names or capacities of said defendants, but pray that the

15 same may be inserted herein when ascertained.

16 Alter Ego Allegations

17 40. There exists a unity of interest and ownership between and among the individual

18 members of the THAKOR FAMILY and business entity Defendants 56 MASON, LLC; BALBOA

19 HOTEL, LLC; CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN HOTEL, LLC; SHREE JALABAP A

20 HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM

21 LODGING, LP; SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC; TKB

22 INVESTMENTS, LP; URA VI, LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC, such that any individuality and

23 separateness between these Defendants have ceased and each is an alter-ego of the other. At all times

24 mentioned herein, each of these I?efendants has committed acts establishing alter ego liability

25 including but not limited to: the use of the Same office or business location; the employment of the

26 same employees and attorney; the failure to adequately capitalize and/or the total absence of

27 capitalization; the use of the business entity as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single

28 venture or the business of an individual or another business entity; the concealment and

8 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codent\li2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 misrepresentation of the identity of the responsible ownership, management and financial interest; the

2 disregard oflegal formalities and the failure to maintain arms-length relationships with other

3 Defendants; sole ownership of all the stock by one individual or members of one family; confusion of

4 business records of the separate Defendants; and the co-mingling of funds and assets and the

5 unauthorized diversion of funds and assets for other than business entity uses. As such, adherence to

6 the fiction of the separate existence of each Defendant as an entity distinct from each other would

7 permit an abuse of the corporate, LP and LLC privileges and would promote injustice. Each

8 Defendant was but an instrumentality or conduit of the other in the prosecution of a single venture,

9 namely the management, ownership and operation of residential SRO hotel buildings. Therefore, it

10 would be inequitable for any Defendant to escape liability for an obligation incurred as much for that

11 Defendant's benefit as for the other Defendants.

12 41. DEFENDANT BILL THAKOR, individually or through other members of the

13 THAKOR FAMILY, at all times relevant herein, was a shareholder and/or member of and dominated,

14 controlled, managed and operated Defendant entities including, but not limited to, the following: 56

15 MASON, LLC; BALBOA HOTEL, LLC; CNIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN HOTEL, LLC;

16 SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP;

17 SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP; SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB INVESTMENTS,

18 LLC; TKB INVESTMENTS, LP; URA VI, LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC, to such an extent that,

19 at all times herein mentioned, there existed a unity of interest and ownership between these

20 Defendants and BILL THAKOR. BILL THAKOR, therefore, was the alter-ego of these Defendants

21 and any individuality or separateness of these Defendants and BILL THAKOR have ceased. At all

22 times mentioned herein, BILL THAKOR has committed acts establishing his alter ego liability

23 including but not limited to: use of the same office or business location as the Defendant entities; the

24 use of Defendant entities as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or for his

25 individual business; the concealment and misrepresentation of his ownership, management and

26 financial interest; the disregard oflegal formalities and the failure to maintain arms-length

27 relationships with Defendant entities; sole ownership of all the stock by him or members of his family;

28 failure to adequately capitalize and/or the total absence of capitalization; and the co-mingling of funds

9 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\Ii2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 and assets and the unauthorized diversion of funds and assets for other than business entity uses. As

2 the alter ego of these Defendants, BILL THAKOR orchestrated, ratified and was otherwise involved in

3 the unlawful conduct described herein. Therefore, adherence to the fiction of a separate existence of

4 these Defendants as entities separate and distinct from BILL THAKOR would permit an abuse of the

5 corporate, LP and LLC privileges and would promote injustice by allowing BILL THAKOR to evade

6 liability or veil assets that should in equity be used to satisfy the civil penalties and injunctive relief

7 sought by Plaintiffs. Each Defendant was but an instrumentality or conduit of BILL THAKOR in the

8 prosecution of a single venture, namely the management, ownership and operation of residential SRO

9 hotel buildings. Therefore, it would be inequitable for BILL THAKOR to escape liability for an

10 obligation incurred as much for BILL THAKOR'S benefit as for the other Defendants.

11 42. DEFENDANT KIRANSINH THAKOR, individually or through other members of the

12 THAKOR FAMILY, at all times relevant herein, was a shareholder and/or member of and dominated,

13 controlled, managed and operated Defendant entities including, but not limited to, the following: 56

14 MASON, LLC; BALBOA HOTEL, LLC; CMC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN HOTEL, LLC;

15 SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP;

1o, SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP; SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB INVESTMENTS,

17 LLC; TKB INVESTMENTS, LP; URA VI, LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC, to such an extent that,

18 at all times herein mentioned, there existed a unity of interest and ownership between these

19 Defendants and KIRANSINH THAKOR. KIRANSINH THAKOR, therefore, was the alter-ego of

20 these Defendants and any individuality or separateness of these Defendants and KIRANSINH

21 THAKOR have ceased. At all times mentioned herein, KIRANSINH THAKOR has committed acts

22 establishing his alter ego liability including but not limited to: use of the same office or business

23 location as the Defendant entities; the use of Defendant entities as a mere shell, instrumentality or

24 conduit for a single venture or for his individual business; the concealment and misrepresentation of

25 his ownership, management and financial interest; the disregard oflegal formalities and the failure to

26 maintain arms-length relationships with Defendant entities; sole ownership of all the stock by him or

27 members of his family; failure to adequately capitalize and/or the total absence of capitalization; and

28 the co-mingling of funds and assets and the unauthorized diversion of funds and assets for other than

10 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\1i2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 business entity uses. As the alter ego of these Defendants, KIRANSINH THAKOR orchestrated,

2 ratified and was otherwise involved in the unlawful conduct described herein. Therefore, adherence to

3 the fiction of a separate existence of these Defendants as entities separate and distinct from

4 KIRANSINH THAKOR would permit an abuse of the corporate, LP and LLC privileges and would

5 promote injustice by allowing KIRANSINH THAKOR to evade liability or veil assets that should in

6 equity be used to satisfy the civil penalties and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs. Each Defendant

7 was but an instrumentality or conduit ofKIRANSINH THAKOR in the prosecution of a single

8 venture, namely the management, ownership'and operation.ofresidential SRO hotel buildings.

9 Therefore, it would be inequitable for KIRANSINH THAKOR to escape liability for an obligation

10 incurred as much for KIRANSINH THAKOR'S benefit as for the other Defendants.

11 43. DEFENDANT BAHA V ASINH THAKOR, individually or through other members of

12 the THAKOR FAMILY, at all times ,relevant herein, was a shareholder and/or member of and

13 dominated, controlled, managed and operated Defendant entities including, but not limited to, the

14 following: 56 MASON, LLC; BALBOA HOTEL, LLC; CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN

15 HOTEL, LLC; SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM

16 HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP; SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB

17 INVESTMENTS, LLC; TKB INVESTMENTS, LP; URA VI, LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC, to

18 such an extent that, at all times herein mentioned, there existed a unity of interest and ownership

19 between these Defendants and BAHAVASINH THAKOR. BAHA VASINH THAKOR, therefore,

20 was the alter-ego of these Defendants and any individuality or separateness of these Defendants and

21 BAHA VASINH THAKOR have ceased. At all times mentioned herein, BAHA VASINH THAKOR

22 has committed acts establishing his alter ego liability including but not limited to: use of the same

23 office or business location as the Defendant entities; the use of Defendant entities as a mere shell,

24 instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or for his individual business; the concealment and

25 misrepresentation of his ownership, management and financial interest; the disregard oflegal

26 fonnalities and the failure to maintain anns-Iength relationships with Defendant entities; sole

27 ownership of all the stock by him or members of his family; failure to adequately capitalize and/or the

28 total absence of capitalization; and the co-mingling of funds and assets and the unauthorized diversion


1 of funds and assets for other than business entity uses. As the alter ego of these Defendants,

2 BAHA V ASINH THAKOR orchestrated, ratified and was otherwise involved in the unlawful conduct

3 described herein. Therefore, adherence to the fiction of a separate existence of these Defendants as

4 entities separate and distinct from BAHA V ASINH THAKOR would permit an abuse of the corporate,

5 LP and LLC privileges and would promote injustice by allowing BAHA V ASINH THAKOR to evade

6 liability or veil assets that should in equity be used to satisfy the civil penalties and injunctive relief

7 sought by Plaintiffs. Each Defendant was but an instrumentality or conduit of BAH A VASINH

8 THAKOR in the prosecution of a single venture, namely the management, ownership and operation of

9 residential SRO hotel buildings. Therefore, it would be inequitable for BAHA V ASINH THAKOR to

10 escape liability for an obligation incurred as much for BAHA V ASINH THAKOR'S benefit as for the

11 other Defendants.

12 44. DEFENDANT LATABEN B. THAKOR, an individual, at all times relevant herein,

13 was a shareholder andlor member of and dominated, controlled, managed and operated Defendant

14 entities including, but not limited to, the following: 56 MASON, LLC; BALBOA HOTEL, LLC;

15 CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; KEAN HOTEL, LLC; SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP; SHREE

16 JALARAM, LLC; SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP; SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP; SHREE

17 JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP; TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC; TKB INVESTMENTS, LP; URA VI,

18 LLC; and WINTON HOTEL, LLC, to such an extent that, at all times herein mentioned, there existed

19 a unity of interest and ownership between these Defendants and LATABEN B. THAKOR.

20 LATABEN B. THAKOR, therefore, was the alter-ego of these Defendants and any individuality or

21 separateness of these Defendants and LATABEN B. THAKOR have ceased. At all times mentioned

22 herein, LATABEN B. THAKOR has committed acts establishing her alter ego liability including but

23 not limited to: use of the same office or business location as the Defendant entities; the use of

24 Defendant entities as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or for her individual

25 business; the concealment and misrepresentation of her ownership, management and financial interest;

26 the disregard oflegal formalities and thefailure to maintain arms-length relationships with Defendant

27 entities; sole ownership of all the stock by her or members of her family; failure to adequately

28 capitalize andlor the total absence of capitalization; and the co':'mingling of funds and assets and the


1 unauthorized diversion of funds and assets for other than business entity uses. As the alter ego of

2 these Defendants, LATABEN B. THAKOR orchestrated, ratified and was otherwise involved in the

3 unlawful conduct described herein. Therefore, adherence to the fiction of a separate existence of these

4 Defendants as entities separate and distinct from LATABEN B. THAKOR would permit an abuse of

5 the corporate, LP and LLC privileges and would promote injustice by allowing LATABEN B.

6 THAKOR to evade liability or veil assets that should in equity be used to satisfy the civil penalties and

7 injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs. Each Defendant was but an instrumentality or conduit of

8 LATABEN B. THAKOR in the prosecution of a single venture, namely the management, ownership

9 and operation of residential SRO hotel buildings. Therefore, it would be inequitable for LATABEN

lOB. THAKOR to escape liability for an obligation incurred as much for LATABEN B. THAKOR'S

11 benefit as for the other Defendants.

12

13

14

15

16

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

I. STATE AND LOCAL LAWS VIOLATED BY DEFENDANTS.

A. Renting Unhabitable Residential Rooms To Vulnerable Occupants.

45. California Civil Code Sections 1941, et seq. require that any lessor ofa building

intended for residential purposes must maintain the building in a condition that makes it fit for

habitability, and sets out multiple standard requirements that must be met to achieve this standard of 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

habitability or tenantability.

46. Defendants have routinely failed to meet the requirements of these habitability laws in

Defendants' Properties, and thus have routinely collected rents for untenantable dwellings in violation

of Civil Code Section 1942.4.

B. Depriving SRO Hotel Occupants Of Tenancy Rights.

47. California Civil Code Section 1940.1 provides that no person may require an occupant

of a residential hotel to move, or to check out and re-register, before the expiration of 30 days

occupancy, if a purpose of this requirement is to have that person maintain transient occupancy status

and thus be deprived of the protections provided by law to tenants by Title 5, Chapter 2 of the Civil

Code (Sections 1940-1954.1).

48. San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.2(r)(I) provides that it is unlawful for a


1 landlord to refuse to allow a guest of a residential hotel to continue to stay in a hotel room for 32 days

2 or more in order to prevent that guest from gaining tenancy rights under the San Francisco

3 Administrative Code.

4 49. Defendants routinely engage in business practices that prevent occupants of

5 Defendants' Properties from gaining tenancy rights under the above state and local laws, with the

6 denial of such rights being a purpose, if not the main purpose, of such business practices.

7

8

C.

50.

Maintaining Public Nuisances

California Civil Code Sections 3479, et seq. make it an illegal public nuisance to

9 maintain a property in a state that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or

10 interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.

11 51. San Francisco Housing Code Sections 204(c)(2), 401,1001, Building Code Sections

12 102, 103, 106.1.1, Electrical Code Section 89.17, and Plumbing Code Section 103.1 define a violation

13 of their provisions as a per se public nuisance.

14 52. Defendants routinely engage in business practices at Defendants' Properties that violate

15 the above provisions related to public nuisances.

16

17

D.

53.

Doing Construction Work Without Required Permits Or Contractor's License.

The Contractors' State License Law, California Business and Professions Code Section

18 7000, et seq., makes it illegal for contracting work to be done by a person who is not a contractor

19 licensed by the California State Contractors Licensing Board.

20 54. San Francisco Electrical Code Section 89.120(D) makes it illegal for any electrical

21 work to be performed in San Francisco unless it is performed by the state licensed electrical contractor

22 to whom the permit is issued.

23 55. Defendants routinely, directly or indirectly, perform construction work under permits

24 issued by the San Francisco Building Department to other people and not to them, and without using a

25 licensed contractor to perform or supervise such work.

26

27

E.

56.

False Claims For Payment From The City.

The False Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 12650 et seq., makes it

28 illegal for a City contractor to present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment

14 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et aZ.; Case No. n:\codCnruiz014\140685\00924741.doc

1 by the City. A contractor's implied of express representation, in connection with seeking payment by

2 the City, that the contractor is in compliance with the material terms of the contract, including but not

3 limited to provisions requiring compliance with state or local law, is a false claim within the meaning

4 of the False Claims Act.

5 57. Defendants contract with the City to provide multiple residential rooms in Defendants'

6 Properties for use by clients of CCSF departments.

7 58. Defendants submit, or cause to be submitted, claims to the City for payments under

8 those contracts, representing that those rooms are safe and habitable when in fact that was false and

9 Defendants were in material breach of their contracts with CCSF including provisions requiring

10 compliance with state and local law.

11 II.

12

l3

ILLUSTRATIVE ACTS OF UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES BY DEFENDANTS AT DEFENDANTS' PROPERTIES.

A. Winton Hotel, 445 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, CA

59. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL,

14 LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC own and operate the Winton Hotel located at 445 O'Farrell

15 Street, San Francisco, California, and have done so since at least 2007.

16 60. In their ownership and operation of the Winton Hotel, the THAKOR F AMIL Y

17 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL, LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC have

18 routinely kept and maintained the Property in violation of multiple local and state health and safety

19 codes, thereby depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable rooms to which they are by law entitled,

20 while also causing and maintaining a per sepublic nuisance.

21 61. Among the violations of health and safety codes committed by the THAKOR FAMILY

22 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL, LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC at the

23 Winton Hotel are the failure to contain lead paint during attempted abatement efforts, to provide fire

24 proofing materials in construction of the building, to provide adequate security at building and room

25 entrances, to provide plumbing adequate to avoid leaks of raw sewage. Attached hereto as Exhibit A

26 are true and correct copies of Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders issued to these

27 Defendants, evidencing the violations of state and local law caused by their unfair and unlawful

28 15

CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codent\li2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 business practices.

2 62. In addition to the above violations of health and safety codes, the THAKOR FAMILY

3 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL, LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC

4 perfonned and continue to perfonn construction work at the Winton Hotel without pennits authorizing

5 them to do such work, andlor under pennits issued by the San Francisco Building Department to other

6 people and not to them, andlor without using licensed contractors to perfonn or supervise such work.

7 63. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL,

8 LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC also have routinely. failed to meet the requirements of state and

9 local habitability laws at the Winton Hotel, and thus have routinely collected rents for untenantable

10 dwellings in violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4

11 64. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL,

l2 LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC also contract with the City to provide multiple safe and

13 habitable residential rooms in the Winton Hotel for use by clients of CCSF departments.

14 65. The THAKORFAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL,

15 LLC and TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC submit, or cause to be submitted, cla.ims to the City for

16 payments under those contracts, expressly or impliedly representing that those rooms are safe and

17 habitable as required by their contracts with CCSF and by state and local law, while knowing that

18 many or all of the rooms are neither safe nor habitable.

19 66. These a.lleged acts are illustrative of the unfair and unlawful business practices of the

20 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS WINTON HOTEL, LLC and TKB

21 INVESTMENTS, LLC at the Winton Hotel, and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of such

22 illegal business practices at that or other locations.

23 B. Civic Center Hotel, 20 - 12th Street, San Francisco, CA

24 67. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANT CIVIC CENTER

25 HOTEL, LLC own and operate the Civic Center Hotel located at 20 - 12th Street, San Francisco,

26 California, and have done so since at least 2007.

27 68. In their ownership and operation of the Civic Center Hotel, the THAKOR FAMILY

28 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANT CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC have routinely kept and

16 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li20 14\140685\00924 741.doc

1 maintained the Property in violation of multiple local and state health and safety codes, thereby

2 depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable rooms to which they are by law entitled, while also

3 causing and maintaining a per se public nuisance.

4 69. Among the health and safety code violations committed by the THAKOR FAMILY

5 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANT CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC at the Civic Center Hotel are

6 failure to keep the property free from pest infestations, including rampant bedbug infestations, to

7 provide adequate fire protection and safety, to provide adequate security, to provide functional

8 plumbing that does not result in repeated sewage leaks, failure to provide residential rooms and

9 bathrooms that are free of mold and mildew, and failure to provide adequate heat. Attached hereto as

10 Exhibit B are true and correct copies of Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders issued to

11 these Defendants, evidencing the violations of state and local law caused by their unfair and unlawful

12 business practices.


14 HOTEL, LLC also have routinely failed to meet the requirements of state and local habitability laws at

15 the Civic Center Hotel and have routinely collected rents for untenantable dwellings in violation of

16 Civil Code Section 1942.4

17 71. In addition to the above health and safety code violations, the THAKOR FAMILY

18 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANT CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC performed and continue to

19 perform construction work at the Civic Center Hotel without permits authorizing them to do such

20 work, and/or under permits issued by the San Francisco Building Department to other people and not

21 to them, and/or without using a licensed contractor to perform or supervise such work.


23 HOTEL, LLC also contract with the City to provide and do provide multiple residential rooms in the

24 Civic Center Hotel for use by clients of CCSF departments.


26 HOTEL, LLC submit, or cause to be submitted, claims to the City for payments under those contracts,

27 expressly or impliedly representing that those rooms are safe and habitable as required by their

28 contracts with CCSF and by state and local law, while knowing that many or all of the rooms are

17 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\1i20 14\140685\00924741.doc

1 neither safe nor habitable.

2 74. These alleged acts are illustrative of the unfair and unlawful business practices of the

3 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANT CNIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC at the Civic

4 Center Hotel, and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of such illegal business practices at that or

5 other locations.

6 C. Kean Hotel, 1018 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA

7 75. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS SHREE JALABAPA

8 HOTEL, LP and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP own and operate the Kean Hotel located at

9 1018 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, and have done so since at least 1999.

10 76. In their ownership and operation of the Kean Hotel, the THAKOR FAMILY

11 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP and SHREE

12 JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP have routinely kept and maintained the Property in violation of J

13 multiple local and state health and safety codes, thereby depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable

14 rooms to which they are by law entitled, while also causing and maintaining a per se public nuisance.


16 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP and SHREE

17 JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP at the Kean Hotel are failure to keep the property free from pest

18 infestations, including rampant cockroach and bedbug infestations, failure to provide an operable

19 elevator, failure to provide adequate fire protection and safety, failure to provide adequate security,

20 failure to provide plumbing adequate to avoid repeated sewage leaks, failure to provide safe and

21 functional wiring, failure to provide residential room and bathrooms' free of mold and mildew, and

22 failure to provide adequate heat. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of Notices of

23 Violations and Administrative Orders issued to these Defendants, evidencing the violations of state

24 and local law caused by their unfair and unlawful business practices.

25 78. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS SHREE JALABAP A

26 HOTEL, LP and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP also have routinely failed to meet the

27 requirements of state and local habitability laws at the Kean Hotel, and have routinely collected rents

28 for untenantable dwellings in violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4

18 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et aZ.; Case No. n:\codent\li20 14\140685\00924741.doc


2 HOTEL, LP.and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP also have violated California Civil Code

3 Section 1940.1 at the Kean Hotel by requiring occupants to move, or to check out and re-register,

4 before the expiration of 30 days occupancy, with a purpose to have occupants maintain transient

5 occupancy status and thus be deprived of the protections provided by law to tenants by Title 5,

6 Chapter 2 of the Civil Code (Sections 1940-1954.1).


8 HOTEL, LP and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP also have violated San Francisco

9 Administrative Code Section 37.2(r)(1) by refusing to allow hotel guests to continue to stay in a hotel

10 room for 32 days or more in order to prevent such guests from gaining tenancy rights under the San

11 Francisco Administrative Code.

12 81. In addition, the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS SHREE

13 JALABAP A HOTEL, LP and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP performed and continue to

14 perform construction work at the Kean Hotel without permits authorizing them to do such work,

15 and/or under permits issued by the San Francisco Building Department to other people and not to

16 them, 'and/or without using a licensed contractor to perform or supervise such work.


18 HOTEL, LP and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP also contract with the City to provide and do

19 provide multiple residential rooms in the Kean Hotel for use by clients of CCSF departments.


21 HOTEL, LP and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP submit, or cause to be submitted, claims to

22 the City for payments under those contracts, expressly or impliedly representing that those rooms are

23 safe and habitable as required by their contracts with CCSF and by state and local law, while knowing

24 that many or all of the rooms are neither safe nor habitable.


26 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS SHREE JALABAP A HOTEL, LP and

27 SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, ~P at the Kean Hotel, and are not intended to be an exhaustive

28 list of such illegal business practices at that or other locations.


1 D. Budget Inn, 1139 Market Street, San Francisco, CA

2 85. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS TKB INVESTMENTS,

3 LP and SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP own and operate the Budget Inn, located at 1139 Market


5 86. In their ownership and operation of the Budget Inn, the THAKOR FAMILY

6 DEFENDANTS TK.B INVESTMENTS, LP and SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP have routinely

7 kept and maintained the Property in violation of multiple local and state health and safety codes,

8 thereby depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable rooms to which they are by law entitled, while

9 also causing and maintaining a per se public nuisance.


11 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS TKB INVESTMENTS, LP and SHREE JALARAM

12 LODGING, LP at the Budget Inn are failure to keep the property free from pests, including rampant

13 cockroach and bedbug infestations, failure to provide adequate fire protection and safety, failure to

14 provide adequate security, failure to provide plumbing adequate to avoid repeated sewage leaks,

15 failure to provide safe and functional wiring, failure to provide residential rooms and bathrooms free

16 of mold and mildew, and failure to provide adequate heat. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and

17 correct copies of Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders issued to these Defendants,

18 evidencing the violations of state and local law caused by their unfair and unlawful business practices.

19 88. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS TKB INVESTMENTS,

20 LP and SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP also have routinely failed to meet the requirements of

21 state and local habitability laws at the Budget Inn, and have routinely collected rents for untenantable

22 dwellings in violation of Civil Code Section 19A2.4

23 89. In addition, the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS TKB

24 INVESTMENTS, LP and SHREE JALARAM LODGING, LP performed and continue to perform

25 construction work at the Budget Inn without permits authorizing them to do such work, and/or under

26 permits issued by the San Francisco Building Department to other people and not to them, and/or

27 without using a licensed contractor to perform or supervise such work.


20 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codeni\li2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS TKB INVESTMENTS, LP and SHREE

2 JALARAM LODGING, LP at the Budget Inn, and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of such


4 E. Bristol Hotel, 56 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA

5 91. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON, LLC and

6 SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP own and operate the Bristol Hotel, located at 56 Mason Street, San

7 Francisco, California, and have done so since at least 1999.

8 92. In their ownership and operation of the Bristol Hotel, the THAKOR FAMILY

9 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON, LLC and SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP have

10 routinely kept and maintained the Property in violation of multiple local and state health and safety

11 codes, thereby depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable rooms to which they are by law entitled,

12 while ;also causing and maintaining a per se public nuisance.


14 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON, LLC and SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP at the

15 Bristol Hotel are failure to keep the property free from pests, failure to provide an operable elevator,

16 failure to provide adequate fire protection and safety, failure to provide adequate security, failure to

17 provide plumbing adequate to prevent repeated sewage leaks, failure to provide safe and functional

18 wiring, failure to provide residential rooms and bathrooms free of mold and mildew, failure to provide

19 adequate trash facilities, and failure to provide adequate heat. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true

20 and correct copies of Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders issued to these Defendants,

21 evidencing the violations of state and local law caused by their unfair and unlawful business practices.

22 94. Additional health and safety code violations committed by the THAKOR FAMILY

23 DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON, LLC and SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP at the

24 Bristol Hotel include release of hazardous lead paint chips and dust during unlicensed construction

25 work at the site, endangering the health of both residents and workers.

26 95. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON, LLC and

27 SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP also have routinely failed to meet the requirements of state and local

28 habitability laws at the Bristol Hotel, and have routinely collected rents for untenantable dwellings in

21 CCSF, et aZ. v. "Bill" Thakor, et aZ.; Case No. n:\codenf\li20 14\140685\00924 741.doc

1 violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4

2 96. In addition, the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON,

3 LLC and SHREE JALARAM HOTEL, LP perfonn construction work at the Bristol Hotel without a

4 permit that authorizes them to do such work, andlor under permits issued by the San Francisco

5 Building Department to other people and not to them, andlor without using a licensed contractor to

6 perform or supervise such work.


8 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS 56 MASON, LLC and SHREE

9 JALARAM HOTEL, LP at the Bristol Hotel, and are not mtended to be an exhaustive list of such


11

12

F.

98.

Page Hotel, 161 Leavenworth Street, San Francisco, CA

BILL THAKOR and the THAKORF AMILY DEFENDANTS, individually andlor

13 through an unknown business entity, own and operate the Page Hotel, located at 161 Leavenworth


15 99. In their ownership and operation of the Page Hotel, BILL THAKOR and the THAKOR

16 FAMILY DEFENDANTS have routinely kept and maintained the Property in violation of multiple

17 local and state health and safety codes, thereby depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable rooms to

18 which they are by law entitled, while also causing and maintaining a per se public nuisance.

19 100. Among the health and safety code violations committed by BILL THAKOR and the

20 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS at the Page Hotel are failure to keep the property free from

21 pests, failure to repair or replace decayed and unsafe stairs, failure to provide adequate bathroom

22 facilities, failure to provide adequate fire protection and safety, failure to provide adequate security,

23 failure to provide adequate plumbing free from repeated leaks, failure to provide safe and functional

24 wiring, failure to provide residential rooms and bathrooms free of mildew and mold, and failure to

25 provide adequate trash facilities. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of Notices of

26 Violations and Administrative Orders issued to these Defendants, evidencing the violations of state

27 and local law caused by their unfair and unlawful business practices.

28 101. Additional health and safety code violations committed by BILL THAKOR and the


1 THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS at the Page Hotel include release of hazardous lead paint chips

2 and dust, endangering the health of both residents and workers.

3 102. BILL THAKOR and the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS also have routinely

4 failed to meet the requirements of state and local habitability laws at the Page Hotel, and thus have

5 routinely collected rents for untenantable dwellings in violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4

6 103. In addition, BILL THAKOR and the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS performed

7 and continue to perform construction work at the Page Hotel without permits authorizing them to do

8 such work, and/or under permits issued by the San Francisco Building Department to other people and

9 not to them, and/or without using a licensed contractor to perform or supervise such work.

10 104. BILL THAKOR and the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS also contract with the

11 City to provide and do provide multiple residential rooms in the Page Hotel for use by clients of CCSF

12 departments.

13 105. BILL THAKOR and the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS submit, or cause to be

14 submitted, claims to the City for payments under those contracts, expressly or impliedly representing

15 that those rooms are safe and habitable as required by their contracts with CCSF and by state and local

16 law, when in fact many or all of the rooms are neither safe nor habitable.

17 106. These alleged acts are illustrative of the unfair and unlawful business practices of BILL

18 THAKOR and the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS at the Page Hotel, and are not intended to be

19 an exhaustive list of such illegal business practices at that or other locations.

20 G. Warfield Hotel, 118 Taylor Street, San Francisco, CA

21 107. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS owned and operated the Warfield Hotel

22 located at 118 Taylor Street, San FranciscO, California, from approximately September 1, 2001 until

23 approximately August 31, 2013.

24 108. In their ownership and operation of the Warfield Hotel, the THAKOR FAMILY,

25 DEFENDANTS routinely kept and maintained the Property in violation of multiple local and state

26 health and safety codes, thereby depriving vulnerable tenants of the habitable rooms to which they are

27 by law entitled, while also causing and maintaining a per se public nuisance.


23 CCSF, et aZ. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 DEFENDANTS at the Warfield Hotel were the following substandard conditions: 1) rodent,

2 cockroach and bedbug infestations; 2) insufficient security and fire safety for entry doors in multiple

3 units; 3) plumbing leaks; 4) damaged walls and floors; 5) severe mold and mildew; 6) lack of working

4 smoke detectors; 7) insufficient number of showers; 8) multiple units filled with debris clutter from

5 hoarding that creates a pest and fire danger; and 11) defective or missing fire sprinklers.

6 110. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS also have routinely failed to meet the

7 requirements of state and local habitability laws at the Warfield Hotel, and have routinely collected

8 rents for untenantable dwellings in violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4

9 111. In addition to the above violations of health and safety codes, the THAKOR FAMILY

10 DEFENDANTS performed and continue to perform construction work at the Warfield Hotel without

11 permits authorizing them to do such work, and/or under permits issued by the San Francisco Building

12 Department to other people and not to them, and/or without using a licensed contractor to perform or

13 supervise such work.

14 112. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS also contracted with the City to provide and

15 did provide multiple residential rooms in the Warfield Hotel for use by clients of CCSF departments.

16 113. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS submitted, or caused to be submitted, claims

17 to the City for payments under those contracts, expressly or impliedly representing that those rooms

18 are safe and habitable as required by their contracts with CCSF and by state and local law , when in

19 fact many or all of the rooms are neither safe nor habitable.


21 THAKORFAMILYDEFENDANTS at the Warfield Hotel, and are not intended to be an exhaustive

22 list of such illegal business practices at that or other locations.

23 115. Plaintiffs on July 29, 2013 filed a related action in this Court against BILL THAKOR

24 and KIRANSINH THAKOR for their violations oflaw as owners and operators of the Warfield Hotel.

2S See Superior Court Number CGC-13-533157.

26 H. Other THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANT Properties.

27 116. The THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS, individually, collectively, and/or through

28 unknown business entities, also have owned and operated other SRO Hotels in the same manner as


1 above during the period of time May 1, 2010 until the present. Other SRO Hotels operated by

2 Defendants, and representative examples of Defendants illegal activities at those hotels, include the

3

4

5

6

7

following:

a. Admiral Hotel, 608 O'Farrell Street - 30 rooms - sewer leaks, lack of adequate

lead paint containment, plumbing leaks, water leaks from exterior, pest infestation, lack of

working elevator;

b. Aldrich Hotel, 439 Jones Street - 35 rooms - violations oflocal and state health

8 and safety statutes and habitability laws involving mold, lack of working elevator, inadequate

9 fire safety protection, pest infestation;

10 c. Auburn Hotel, 481 Minna Street - 78 rooms -lack of heat, inadequate

11 bathroom facilities, lack oflead paint debris containment, plumbing leaks, mold, pest

12 infestation, inadequate fire safety, inadequate security, performing construction work without

13 permits;

14 d. Balboa Hotel, 120 Hyde Street - 32 rooms -lack of heat, construction work

15 without permit, inadequate electrical service, lack of security, mold, plumbing leaks, extreme

16 hoarding and cluttering causing imminent fire hazard, inadequate fire safety protection;

17 e. Best Inn, 162 Taylor Street - 28 rooms -lack of heat, plumbing leaks;

18

19

20

f.

g.

h.

Hotel Krupa, 700 Jones Street - 25 rooms - inadequate fire protection;

J alaram Hotel, 868 Valencia Street - 24 rooms - pest infestation;

Kiran Hotel, 130 Eddy Street - 38 rooms -lack of heat, pest infestation,

21 plumbing leaks, mold, inoperable elevator.

22 I. Only mustrative Examples.

23 117. The Defendants' actions described above in relation to specific properties are merely

24 examples. Defendants have engaged in the unlawful and unfair business acts and practices described

25 in this Complaint in connection with numerous properties they currently own, operate and manage, or

26 have owned, operated or managed in the past.

27

28

25 CCSF, et aZ. v. "Bill" Thakor, et aZ.; Case No. n:\codenf\li2014\140685\00924741.cloc

1

2

3

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - DEPRIVATION OF TENANCY RIGHTS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (Civil Code Section 1940.1)

118. Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA hereby incorporate by

4 reference Paragraphs 1 through 117, as though fully set forth herei1;l.

5 119. Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time heretofore and at all times

6 mentioned, in violation of California Civil Code Section 1940.1, which provides that no person may

7 require an occupant of a residential hotel to move or check out before the expiration of30 days '

8 occupancy, with a purpose of maintaining occupants in a transient occupancy status and thus depriving

9 them of the protections provided by law to tenants by Title 5, Chapter 2 ofthe Civil Code (Sections

10

11

1940-1954.1 ).

120. Residents of Defendants , Hotels for 30 days or more gain rights under Califopria Civil

12 Code 1940, et seq.

13 121. Defendants' actions, more particularly described above, establish a pattern and practice

14 of requiring occupants to check out of their hotel rooms before the expiration of30 days with a

15 purpose to prevent them from obtaining tenancy rights.

16 122. Defendants' actions harm Plaintiff because they increase the number of San Franciscans

17 without stable homes, and put these residents at risk ofliving on the streets. San Francisco has a public

18 interest in decreasing the number of San Franciscans at risk for homelessness and living in unstable

19 housmg.

20 123. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the

21 public from the present danger and harm caused by the practices described above. Unless Defendants

22 are enjoined from engaging in the aforementioned practices, said community and neighborhood, and

23 the residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury and

24 damage, in that Defendants will continue to require occupants to check out before those occupants can

25 obtain tenancy status in the Property, to disrupt the lives of the citizens and residents of the City and

26 County of San Francisco, and to deny the citizens the right to protection under California Civil Code

27 Section 1940.1.

28


1 124. Defendants' practice of depriving vulnerable individuals of tenancy rights subjects them

2 to civil penalties of$500 per violation and attorneys fees as set forth in Civil Code Section 1940.1(b).

3 125. Defendants' practice depriving vulnerable senior and disabled individuals of tenancy

4 rights makes Defendants liable for treble damages under California Civil Code Section 3345.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - DEPRIVATION OF TENANCY RIGHTS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

. AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 37.2, 37.10B)

126. Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO hereby incorporates by

reference Paragraphs 1 through 125 as though fully set forth herein.

127. Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time heretofore and at all times

mentioned, in violation of San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.2, which provides that it is

unlawful for a landlord to refuse to allow a hotel guest to continue to stay in a hotel room for 32 days

or more in order to prevent that guest from gaining tenancy rights under the San Francisco

Administrative Code.

128. Residents of Defendants , Hotels for 32 continuous days or more gain rights under San

Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.2(r)(1).

129. Defendants' actions, more particularly described above, establish a pattern and practice

of requiring occupants to check out of their hotel rooms before the expiration of32 days to avoid

providing tenancy rights to these occupants.

130. In addition, by depriving hotel guests of the ability to gain tenancy rights as described

above, Defendants also have engaged in ''tenant harassment" under San Francisco Administrative

Code Section 37.10B.

131. Defendants' actions harm Plaintiff because they increase the number of San Franciscans

without stable homes, and put these residents at risk of living on the streets. San Francisco has a

public interest in decreasing the number of San Franciscans at risk for homelessness and living in

unstable housing.

132. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the

public from the present danger and harm caused by the practices described above. Unless Defendants


1 are enjoined from engaging in the aforementioned practices, said community and neighborhood, and

2 the residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury and

3 damage, in that Defendants will continue to require occupants to check out before those occupants can

4 obtain tenancy status in the Property, to disrupt the lives of the citizens and residents of the City and

5 County of San Francisco, and to deny the citizens the right to protection under the San Francisco

6 Administrative Code.

7 133. Defendants' illegal business practice of abridging tenancy rights of their clients subjects

8 them to a mandatory fine of $1 000 per violation as set forth in San Francisco Administrative Code

9 37.10B(c)(5).

10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

11

12

13

14

COUNT ONE PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE

FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(San Francisco Housing Code Sections 204(c)(2), 401,1001; San Francisco Building Code Sections 102, 103, 106A; San Francisco Health Code Section 581.)

15 134. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 133 above and make

16 thepl a part of this c8;use of action, as though fully set forth herein.

17 135. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action pursuant to San Francisco Housing Code Sections

18 204( c )(2), 401, 1001, San Francisco Building Code Sections 102, 103, 106A, and San Francisco

19 Health Code Section 581.

20 136. Defendants are now, and for a considerable period.oftime and at all times herein

21 mentioned have been maintaining Defendants' Properties in violation of San Francisco Housing Code

22 Sections 204(c)(2), 401, 1001, San Francisco Building Code Sections 102, 103, 106A, and San

23 Francisco Health Code Section 581. Defendants violated the above code provisions by failing to

24 timely abate violations of local health and safety codes and ruso by failing to file and secure requisite

25 permits that would allow them to lawfully commence construction at Defendants' Properties.

26 137. At all times herein mentioned Defendants had notice and knowledge that Defendants'

27 Properties constituted public nuisances because they were served with the administrative notices

28 issued by DBI, but failed to take reasonable steps to timely abate the nuisances.

28 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codent\li2014\140685\00924741.doc

1 138. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the

2 public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described above.

3 139. Unless said nuisances are abated, the residents of Defendants' Properties and the

4 residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury and

5 damage, in that said conditions will continue to be injurious to the continuous enjoyment of the life

6 and the free use of property of said residents of the City and County of San Francisco and the People

7 of the State of California.

8 140. By failing to timely abate violations oflocal health and safety codes and also by failing'

9 to file and secure requisite permits that would allow them to lawfully commence construction at

10 Defendants' Properties, Defendants have violated, disobeyed, omitted, neglected and refused to

11 comply with the San Francisco Housing Code and the notices issued by DBI and Defendants are thus

12 subject to civil penalties up to $1,000 per day for each day that such violations existed and were

13 permitted to continue at each property as set forth in Housing Code Section 204( c)(2).

14

15

16

COUNT TWO GENERAL PUBLIC NUISANCE

FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 3479 AND 3480 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480)

17 141. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 140 above and make

18 them a part of this cause of action, as though fully set forth herein.

19 142. As described above, Defendants are now, and for a considerable period of time, and all

20 times herein mentioned have been, maintaining Defendants' Properties in such a manner as to

21 constitute a continuing public nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480.

22 The conditions giving rise to said public nuisances are the violations of the municipal codes and other

23 conditions described in greater detail above at Defendants' Properties. The practices described above

24 are injurious to the health and safety of the residents and the community, are offensive to the senses,

25 and interfere with the comfortable enjoyment oflife and properties. The practices described above

26 also affect a considerable number of persons and an entire community or neighborhood.

27 143. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that

28 Defendants' Properties were being maintained as public nuisances, but failed to take reasonable steps 29

CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li20 14\140685\00924 741.doc

1 to timely abate the nuisance.

2 144. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue to operate Defendants' Properties in the

3 above-described public nuisance conditions.


5 public from the present danger and harm caused by the conditions described above. Unless injunctive

6 relief is granted to enjoin Defendants, the public will suffer irreparable injury aI).d damage.

7 146. Unless this nuisance is abated, the community, neighborhood, and the residents and

8 citizens of the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco will suffer irreparable

9 injury and damage, in that said conditions will continue to be injurious to the enjoyment and the free

lOuse of the life and property of said residents and citizens of the State of California and the City and

11 County of San Francisco.

12

13

14

15

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE HOUSING LAW

BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Health And Safety Code Sections 17910-17998.3)

16 147. Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs

17 1 through 146 above and make them a part of this cause of action, as though fully set forth herein.

18 148. Defendants now are, and for a considerable period of time heretofore and at all times

19 herein mentioned have been, maintaining and Defendants' Properties as substandard buildings within

20 the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3. The conditions creating said substan~ard

21 buildings are the on-going violations of the San Francisco Municipal Codes, as well as state and local

22 law relating to the rights of tenants. The substandard conditiqns at the properties substantially

23 endanger the health and safety of the occupants and the general public.

24 149. At all times herein mentioned Defendants have had notice and knowledge that

25 Defendants' Properties are substandard buildings.


27 residents and the public from the harm caused by the conditions described herein.

28 151. Unless said substandard conditions are abated, the occupants of Defendants' Properties

30 CCSF: et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li20 14\140685\00924 741.doc

1 and the residents and citizens of the City and County of San Francisco, will suffer irreparable injury

2 and damage, in that said conditions will continue to endanger the health and safety of the occupants of

3 the properties and the occupants of the adjacent properties and the public.

4

5·

6

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY

BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AGAINST DEFENDANTS

(Government Code Section 12651)

7 152. Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs

8 1 through 151 above and make them a part of this cause of action, as though fully set forth herein.

9 153. Defendants, through the THAKOR FAMILY DEFENDANTS, and DEFENDANTS

10 WINTON HOTEL, LLC, TKB INVESTMENTS, LLC, CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC, SHREE

11 JALABAP A HOTEL, LP, and SHREE JALARAMBAP A HOTEL, LP have contracted or do contract

12 with the City to provide multiple residential rooms in Defendants' Properties for use by clients of

13 CCSF departments, including at the Civic Center Hotel, the Kean Hotel, the Page Hotel, and the

14 Winton Hotel.

15 154. As part of their written agreements with the City, Defendants specifically agreed that

16 they "[ are] responsible for maintenance and repair of common areas and sleeping rooms in the entire

17 hotel(s), including the rooms and floors rented by [the City]. Owner will maintain the hotel(s),

18 including all rooms rented by [the City], in clean, safe, habitable condition and in accordance with all

19 health and safety codes applicable to the operation of the building. This includes utilizing professional

20 extermination services on a regular basis and more often if necessary." See Exhibit G.

21 155. As part of their written agreements with the City, Defendants also specifically agreed

22 that they ''will provide 24 hour, seven days per week front desk personnel in order to maintain a secure

23 and safe environment. Front desk personnel will be trained to provide professional services and

24 communication to [City] clients and providers. Owner will be in compliance with codes and .

25 ordinances as applicable; such as the SRO Sprinkler Ordinance and the SRO Visitor Policy." See

26 Exhibit G.

27 156. Every such agreement with the City also includes a legally implied requirement that the

28 residential rooms be kept in a condition that is both habitable and compliant with state and local health 31

CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et aT.; Case No. n:\codenf\li2014\l40685\00924741.doc

1 and safety codes.

2 157. Defendants have presented, or caused to be presented, claims to the City for payments

3 under those contracts, expressly or impliedly representing that those rooms are safe and habitable as

4 required by their contracts with CCSF and by state and local law, knowing that many or all of the

5 rooms are neither safe nor habitable and knowing that they were in violation of many state and local

6 laws. Examples of such claims by Defendants are attached as Exhibit H.

7 158. By falsely certifying that the SRO hotel rooms they provide under contract with the

8 City are safe and habitable and compliant with state and local law when they are not, Defendants have

9 violated California Government Code Section 12651.

10

11

12

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, & FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES

BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 -17210)

13 159. Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco hereby incorporates by reference

14 paragraphs 1 through 158 above and make them a part of this cause of action, as though fully set forth

15 herein.

16 160. Plaintiff, acting to protect the public from unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices,

17 brings this cause of action in the public interest in the name of the People of the State of California,

18 pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17200 - 17210.

19 161. Defendants transact business in the form of ownership, management and operation of

20 SRO Hotels within the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. The violations of law

21 described herein have been and are being carried out wholly or in part within the City and County of

22 San Francisco.

23 162. The actions of Defendants are in violation of the laws and public policies of the City

24 and County of San Francisco and the State of California and are inimical to the rights and interest of

25 the general public.

26 163. Through the conduct described above, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and

27 practice ofbnlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices prohibited by Business and Professions

28 Code Sections 17200 - 17210 including but not limited to the following: 32

CCSF: et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\1i2014\140685\00924741.doc

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

Violating the State Housing Law by maintaining and operating substandarq.

properties that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, and welfare of

the occupants and the general public;

Violating the San Francisco Housing, Building, and Health Codes;

Creating per se and general public nuisances in violation of state and local law;

Collecting rents for untenantable dwellings in violation of Civil Code Section

1942.4;

Depriving occupants of Defendants' Properties of tenancy rights in violation of

local and state law;

Performing construction work on residential units unlawfully and without

proper permits; and

Submitting or causing to be submitted to the City claims for payment for

residential rooms for use by City clients while falsely certifying that those

rooms were being maintained in a safe, healthy and habitable condition in

compliance with state and local law.

16 164. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing

17 acts and practices, Defendants have received or will receive income and other benefits, which they

18 would not have received if they had not engaged in the violations of Business and Professions Code

19 Section 17200 described in this Complaint.

20 165. Defendants were able to unfairly compete with other businesses in the State of

21 California by engaging in a pattern and practice of illegal activities that have violated the law and

22 public policy of the City and of the State of California.

23 166. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that damages are insufficient to protect the

24 public from the present harm caused by the conditions described in this Complaint. Defendants will

25 continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. Unless injunctive relief is

26 granted to enjoin Defendants' unfair and unlawful business practices, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable

27 injury and damage.

28 167. Defendants are subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation of the Business


1 and Professions Code for each act of unfair and unlawful competition.

2 168. Defendants are subject to additional penalties of up to $2,500 per violation of the

3 Business and Professions Code for each act of unfair competition perpetrated against one or more

4 senior citizens or disabled persons.

5

6 RELIEF REQUESTED

7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

8 Declaratory Relief

9 1. Declare Defendants' Properties a public nuisance and a per se public nuisance in

10 violation of the San Francisco Building, Housing and Health Codes and Civil Code Sections 3479 and

11 3480;

12 2. Declare that Defendants' Properties are in a condition that substantially endangers the

13 health and safety of the occupants of the Properties and the general public;

14 3. Declare that Defendants have engage in a civil conspiracy to violate the various laws

15 alleged to have been violated herein;

16 4. Declare that Defendants have engaged in oppression, fraud, andlor malice in violating

17 San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 37.2 andlor 37.10B.

18 5. Declare that Defendants have engaged in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts

19 and practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17210;

20 Injunctive Relief

21 6. Order Defendants to abate the public nuisance and per se public nuisance at

22 Defendants' Properties;

23 7. Order Defendants to cause Defendants' Properties and all parts thereof to conform to

24 law;

25 8. Order Defendants to vacate Defendants' Properties and all parts thereof and enjoin

26 Defendants from renting, leasing, occupying, or otherwise using Defendants' Properties or any part

27 thereof while the conditions described in this Complaint, or any of them, exist and until Defendants'

28 Properties and any structures on Defendants' Properties and all parts thereof have been repaired and


1 restored to confonn to law;

2 9. Order Defendants to pay relocation assistance to the lawful tenants of Defendants'

3 Properties, if necessary, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(d)(3);

4 10. Grant Plaintiffs a lien upon Defendants' Properties in the amount Plaintiffs expended

5 pursuant to authority and a judgment in that amount against Defendant, its successors and assigns;

6 11. Order Defendant to pay all abatement costs, pursuant to Building Code Section

7 102A.14 and 102A.17;

8 12. Order Defendants not to claim any deduction with respect to state taxes for interest,

9 taxes, expenses, depreciation, or amortization paid or incurred with respect Defendants' Properties for

10 the taxable year of the initial Order or Notice to the present until all such Orders and Notices are

11 abated, pursuant to State Housing Law Section 17980.7(b)(I);

12 13. Enjoin Defendants and their succesSors in interest, by themselves or through their

13 agents, officers, managers, representatives, employees, and anyone acting on their behalf, from

14 operating, conducting, using, occupying, or in any way permitting the use of Defendants , Properties in

15 violation of the Civil Code Sections ~479 and 3480, the State Housing Law, the San Francisco

16 Building Code, the San Francisco Housing Code or the San Francisco Health Code, or otherwise

17 engaging in the unfair and unlawful business practices described in this Complaint, pursuant to

18 Business and Professions Code Section 17203-17204.

19 14. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to deprive guests of Defendants' Properties of

20 tenancy rights in violation of San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 37.2 and 37.1 OB, pursuant

21 to Section 37.l0B(c)(4).

22 15. Enjoin Defendants from spending, tr~ferring, encumbering, or removing from

23 California any money received from Defendants' Properties or in payment for the unfair, unlawful,

24 and fraudulent acts alleged in the Complaint;

25 Civil Penalties

26 16. Order Defendants to pay civil penalties of $500 for each day any violation of the San

27 Francisco Building Code was committed or permitted to continue pursuant to San Francisco Building

28 Code Section 103A;

35 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\cod~014\l40685\OO924741.doc

1 17. Order Defendants to pay civil penalties of $1 000 for each day any violation of the San

2 Francisco Housing Code was committed or permitted to continue pursuant to San Francisco Housing

3 Code Section 204(c)(2);

4 18. Order Defendants to pay a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each day any violation of the

5 San Francisco Health Code was committed or permitted to continue pursuant to San Francisco Health

6 Code Sections

7 19. Order Defendants to pay civil penalties of $1 000 per vjolation of San Francisco

8 Administrative Code Section 37.1OB;

9 20. Order Defendants to pay to the City a civil penalty of not less that $5500 nor more than

10 $11,000 for each violation of Government Code Section 12651;

11 21. Order Defendants to pay a civil penalty of $2,500 for each of their unfair, unlawful, and

12 fraudulent acts, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17206;

13 .22. Order Defendants to pay an additional civil penalty of $2,500 for each their unfair,

14 unlawful, and fraudulent acts, perpetrated against one or more elderly or disabled persons, pursuant to

15 Business and Professions Code Section 17206.1;

16 Damages

17 23. Order Defendants to pay treble damages for all violations oflaw that unfairly affected a

18 senior or disabled person, pursuant to Civil Code Section 3345;

19 24. Order Defendants to pay punitive damages for any violation of San Francisco

20 Administrative Code Sections 37.2 and/or 37.10B done with oppression, fraud, and/or malice;

21 25. Order Defendants to pay damages to the City in an amount three times the amount that

22 the City has sustained as a result of Defendants' acts in violation of Government Code Section 12651;

23 Other Equitable Remedies

24 26. Order Defendants to disgorge all profits obtained through its unfair, unlawful, and

25 fraudulent business practices as described herein, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section

26 17203;

27 27. Order restitution of all money or property Defendants acquired as a result of their

28 unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent, business practices to fonner and present of occupants of the Property


1 while Defendants maintained the Property in violation oflaw, pursuant to Business and Professions

2 Code Section 17203;

3 Attorneys' Fees and Costs

4 28. Award Plaintiffs recovery of their attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred to secure

5 safe housing at Defendants' Properties, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17980.7(d)(I);

6 29. Award Plaintiffs their attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to San Francisco

7 Administrative Code Section 37.10B(c)(5).

8 30. Award Plaintiffs recovery of their costs incurred herein, pursuant to Code of Civil

9 Procedure Section 1032 and Government Code Section 12651;

10 Other Relief

11 31. Authorize Plaintiffs to record an Abstract of Judgment that constitutes a prior lien over

12 any lien that any Defendants in this case may hold on Defendants' Properties; and

13 32. Grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper, including

14 attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and costs, as otherwise allowed by statute.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: May 12, 2014 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney YVONNE MERE Chief Attorney, Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division JERRY THREET Deputy City Attorney

ey for laintiffs C AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND

EOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

37 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li2014\l40685\00924741.doc

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INDEX TO EXHmITS

Exhibit Description

A Winton Hotel Department of Building Inspection Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders

B Civic Center Hotel Department of Building Inspection Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders

C Kean Hotel Department of Building Inspection Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders

D Budget Inn Department of Building Inspection Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders

E Bristol Hotel Department of Building Inspection Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders

F Page Hotel Department of Building Inspection Notices of Violations and Administrative Orders

G Contracts between Defendants and Department of Public Health for rooms in Defendants' SRO residential hotels

H Invoices from Defendants to Department of Public Health requesting payment for rooms in Defendants' SRO residential hotels

38 CCSF, et al. v. "Bill" Thakor, et al.; Case No. n:\codenf\li2014\140685\O0924741.doc

city attorney dennis herrera release...city attorney dennis herrera—page 2 safe, habitable’...

Documents